January 29, 2004
By Helle C. Dale
Americans don't normally elect their presidents on foreign
policy, but in some way, the 2004 election looks as though it could
depart from precedent. Iraq is constantly in the evening news, and
the war has playeda major role in the Democratic primaries.
President Bush placed Iraq and the war on terror front and center
in this State of the Union speech last week,the kickoff for his
And yet, one could wish for a higher level of discourse on this
undeniably important subject, and one could wish for other foreign
policy issues to be discussed as well. There is a whole host of
them that will affect this country's future that deserve to be
aired between now and the election.
How will the war on terror affect this country in the long term?
Where does the doctrine of pre-emption lead us? What kind of
military do we need? What kind of superpower do we want to be? Who
should be our allies, shifting coalitions or traditional (if
difficult) alliance partners? Are we still in favor of free trade?
And if so, why is everybody afraid to talk about it? Are we in
favor of reforming the United Nations or is the U.N. system simply
a last resort when all other policy options fail?
And needless to say, should the situation in Iraq go bad, or
another terrorist attack hit the American homeland, it will
certainly effect the outcome in November. Along with the U.S.
economy, no other issue has such potential to influence the
election. Furthermore, the outcome of Iraq will have huge
consequences for the United States' role in the world, for the war
on terrorism and for the Middle East.
But the Democratic candidates have mainly had a field day pointing
fingers over Iraq, sometimes at the president, sometimes at other
Democrats. Hardly ever does the level of discourse rise above the
level of sandbox "nya-nya-nya" and "you voted for the Iraq war and
I didn't, ha, ha."
|Front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has had to twist
himself into a pretzel to explain why he voted for the war
resolution, and yet since has been vociferously criticizing the
president's every move in the war. He would have done something
quite different with the power conferred by Congress, so Mr. Kerry
Meanwhile, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina tries to explain
that yes, he did support the war, but not the supplementary funding
for the war - which seems rather churlish, when you think about
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who seems to have been separated from Mr.
Spock of Star Trek at birth, sounds almost as though he comes from
outer space. He would turn Iraq over to U.N. peacekeepers this very
minute, and beyond that, proposes to have "a very infinitely
interesting journey to planet Earth." Interesting. The Rev. Al
Sharpton has proposed to solve the problem of Iraq with foreign
trade and aid.
Howard Dean at least has been consistent in his opposition to the
war, and loves to stick it to his opponents. His statements,
though, are mind-blowing at times, such as this one from Sunday,
"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone, and I'm sure that
a lot of Iraqis feel its great that Saddam is gone. But a lot of
them gave their lives. And their standard of living is a whole lot
worse now than it was before." Presumably that does not include
victims of torture and terror.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has shown a remarkable talent for
shooting himself in the foot with indefensible and clumsy attacks
on Mr. Bush. He even seemed to agreewithsupporter Michael Moore's
bizarre claim that Mr. Bush was a "deserter." As recorded in the
Weekly Standard's cover story this week, "Does Wesley Clark Have a
Prayer?" the general has veered from praising Mr. Bush and Prime
Minister Tony Blair for their "resolve in the face of so much
doubt" to calling the Bush presidency "the most closed,
imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory."
But how exactly winning a war against a small European tin-pot
dictator in Serbia makes any man an expert on all of U.S. foreign
policy (and domestic as well), the general has never managed to
The one exception in this tit-for-tat game has been Sen. Joseph
Lieberman, whose serious and principled defense of his vote in
favor of the war resolution, as well as the Iraq supplemental, have
been a breath of fresh air. Mr. Lieberman actually sounds like a
grown-up. Too bad so few people have been listening.
Helle Dale is Deputy
Director of The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in The Washington Times
Americans don't normally elect their presidents on foreign policy, but in some way, the 2004 election looks as though it could depart from precedent.
Helle C. Dale
Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973